HIV, Blood, Gays, Society: Bad news

Great Debates
1

I used to have a lot of faith and admiration for the Red Cross. Over the recent years though, their strict stance against blood donation from gay people has been irksome to me.

I just read this:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010813/ts/aids_prevention_dc_1.html

It seems clear to me that there may be some sound reasons to their ban on blood donation. I still see no excuse for their wording.

I think anybody that’s had unprotected anal sex, and has not been in a strictly monogomous relationship for the past five years should abstain from giving blood. I think the Red Cross should demand it.

More, I think that people that have had more than 3 sexual partners in the past 5 years should also abstain.

The epidemic is getting worse, both domestically and abroad and we are all at risk.

Education, like all instances of a little knowledge has proven dangerous.

A condom is not protection enough, and I think we’ve grown too complacent in our attitudes. I know that a condom can seriously reduce the chances of contracting HIV, but when you’re talking about a disease like this a thin layer of latex just isn’t enough to take the chance.

I think we need to be much more careful as a society in screening our sexual partners, and I think we need to be more selective. We need to have fewer sexual partners.

In short, we have to start taking this thing seriously.

Apparently Miami’s South Beach community has an instance of 16% of gay men testing positive for HIV.

I hope that all of our sexually active members, straight and gay, consider the sobering reality of those statistics and the very real danger they represent.

2

My generation has never not known a world without AIDS. It’s as familiar as cancer- something, in short, that they’re not going to get.

I wrote an article about this for a local gay paper. An exerpt:

I do a lot of AIDS outreach work. It’s depressing to know that a lot of my gay male friends are going to catch it. It’s like all of that education is so much pissing in the wind.

3

**

Why was it irksome to you? Homosexuals were at a higher risk for HIV infection then others. Given that there is no cure it seemed like a rather prudent course of action. I don’t believe they allow known IV drug users to donate either.

**

The link you provided made no mention of the Red Cross and seemed to rely on the CDC for most of their information.

**

These days in the United States who doesn’t know how to avoid AIDS? I’m at a loss as to what would make an effective program.

**

You can lead a horse to water but, well, you know the rest.

Recently I heard someone criticizing the pharmaceutical companies who produce various medicines to treat AIDS patients. Apparantly they potray people with AIDS leading happy, healthy, and active lives. The critics believe that these ads make AIDS seem like it isn’t a big deal. I don’t know. Maybe people don’t take AIDS very seriously.

Marc

4

Respectfully, Scylla, we are not all at risk for this disease, or at least not at the same level of risk.

I am a heterosexual male, in a lifelong monogamous relationship. My wife and I have had no other sexual partners. I do not nor have I ever used intravenous drugs. While my chances of contacting AIDS are not zero, they are damn close to it.

AIDS is a terrible disease, and it is to be hoped that some progress will be made towards a cure.

In the meantime, however, let’s be blunt - any given person’s risk factor for this disease is greatly influenced by that person’s behavior. To reduce the risk, alter the behavior or take as many precautions as possible.

The true horror of the AIDS epidemic will be seen in another few generations, as it devastates the African continent.

5

Don’t they test the blood anyway? Why should it matter if your straight or gay? I would still want the blood tested even if it came from the Pope. Plus, most of the people I see giving blood are just trying to score some quick cash so they can buy IV drugs.

6

And if they tested the blood, they could give any infected bags to scientists working on a cure to test on. :smiley:

7

I think that Scylla’s (very sensible) concern is that the report reinforces the idea that AIDS is a “gay” disease.

**
“Health officials said they were particularly discouraged by a spate of studies that appeared to confirm reports that gay and bisexual men were engaging more frequently in unprotected anal sex and other high-risk sexual behavior.”
**

Heterosexual unprotected anal sex is *every bit as risky. * If gay men aren’t sufficiently concerned with prevention, how concerned are straight folk?

Although I’ve got to admit I’ve never understood the appeal of anal intercourse, I feel like I’m in the minority on that one. (This may because I held a warehouse job for ten years, where my Cow Orkers were so buccally fixated that it was rare for a woman to venture into our area without someone quietly saying “Nice pooper!” Weird place.)

We are all equally at risk regardless of sexual orientation, FotD.

8

America’s blood supply depends heavily on volunteers who are not paid for their contributions, but who donate repeatedly over long periods of time. The setting, risk factors, and handling/processing of blood differ considerably when compared to people exchanging blood for cash.

The main reason I’m posting here is to emphasize that no test is perfect. Treat all blood as equal, and more contaminated units will slip into the supply. One reason for discouraging people with heightened risk factors from showing up at the blood centers is that some individuals have treated donation as an opportunity to get themselves tested for HIV. This is a dangerous and thoughtless practice that puts others at risk.

9

I remember hearing(somewhere, no cite) that of all the cases worldwide, gays are by far the minority, but it sounds reasonable, concerning that “every day an estimated 7500 adults and 1000 children across the world become infected.” - cite

The cite clearly shows that AIDS is a “heterosexual disease” if anything. What’s your point Scylla? That all blood from heterosexuals is safe? Absurd.

A friend of mine attended The Punahou School in Honolulu, the highest rated(and most expensive) high school in Hawaii. Several(more than five) students from his graduating class, all heterosexual, were infected with HIV before they even recieved their diplomas due to unprotected sex. Some people are so unwilling to accept that AIDS epidemic transcends all barriers; caste, sexual orientation, or geography.

Please get a clue.

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Larry Mudd *
**

No, we are not. Anal sex by itself does not produce AIDS. Unprotected sex of any kind with someone in a risk group does increase your risk of catching the disease.

As an analogy, consider this: I am a smoker. I am at a higher risk for lung cancer and emphysema that a person who has never smoked.

AIDS risk has correlations with behavior. Monogamous, single partner couples (whether hetero or homo) who have not previously been exposed to the disease are at minimal risk. Multiple partner couples, who have some interaction with people in a higher risk group, have a higher risk of catching the disease.

Hmm, for the real dope the person we need with the professional knowledge is Jillgat.

11

I used to donate blood. I have a somewhat rare blood type (AB+), and I felt it was my obligation. But that was before I had sex. (A long time ago…)

There is no way of making sure that a sexually active person is free of AIDS, save for an AIDS test, and that (IIRC) is only accurate if you’ve abstained from sex for six months or so. Even if you’re practicing safe sex procedures, there is some risk.

At the moment, it seems that gay men have a higher likelihood of being infected with HIV than straight people in the U.S.(at least according to the CDC). It seems like a reasonable precaution to exclude an at-risk population from donating blood products. I don’t object to the exclusion of any group that has even a marginally higher chance of donating potentially infected blood.

I am currently negative for the HIV virus. I hope that I always am. But I can’t guarantee that I always will be, and for me the worst part of finding out I was positive would be to find out that I was responsible for giving the disease to anyone, by any means of transmission. And so, I bow out of the donation line.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Larry Mudd *
**

Surely not, if it is less likely (as pointed out in the study) that your partner is infected.

13

Thank you! Up until now I felt like I was relatively sexually inexperienced, now I feel like a playa!

14

While you may not feel your risk is significant, if AIDS ever begins taking half the toll here that it has in Africa, you will be adversely affected. It will hit our economy, hard. It will change our cultural landscape. You don’t have to be a high risk AIDs chance to risk the effects of AIDS.

We should all be concerned, no matter what our personal risk level is. In fact, I think our personal risk level is fairly irrelevant.

15

::sigh::

Reading comprehension, my friend. Reading comprehension.
I don’t know how your get that from my post.

Please read and comprehend before you go off half-cocked.

16

I’m a volunteer for the Red Cross Blood Bank (in Australia rather than the US, but there are some procedures we have in common).

Yes, donated blood is screened for HIV, among other things.

The problem is this: the most sensitive test currently available has a window of eleven days. That means if I get infected with HIV tomorrow and then donate blood in five days’ time, that test will not show the infection.

Amen to that, and you’re right about needing to take it seriously. All the education programs in the world won’t really make a dent until people get it through their heads that it can happen to them. It’s not a straight disease or a gay disease, HIV doesn’t care who you screw, where you live, how much you make. It’s sobering to me, thinking back, how many chances I took, and it’s downright friggin’ scary looking at some of my friends and how many chances they take, secure in the belief that they’re somehow blessed with good fortune, and it won’t happen to them.

17

If you are in the US, then I doubt you have ever seen anyone get paid to give blood. I believe such a thing would actually be against the law. The Red Cross certainly doesn’t pay donors. The most you’ll ever get for donating blood is a free tee-shirt, and usually you won’t get anything more than a cookie and cup of orange juice.

People can, however, sell their plasma to private agencies that use it to make clotting agents for hemophiliacs. I have known people who kept themselves in booze, cigarettes, and other drugs by selling their plasma. There are some controls on this (plasma center employees perform urine tests and check for needle marks), but it’s nowhere near as strict as I would like it to be if I or someone I loved needed clotting agents.

18

FotD, we seem to agree and disagree simultaneously. Maybe it’s just a communication thing, I will try to speak more concisely.

When I say “We are all at equal risk regardless of sexual orientation,” I mean that sexual orientation considered on it’s own is not a relevant factor.

I know that my risk is minimal-- I’m in a heterosexual monogamous relationship. The risk to homosexual people in long-term relationships is equally minimal.

Obviously, a sixty-year-old virgin is not at “equal risk” as a heroin-addicted prostitute. When people talk about risky behavior, they shouldn’t focus on a fraction of society. There are just as many careless, promiscuous people that are het. They shouldn’t have a false sense of security.